SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Rozz]

African Americans might object just a tiny bit to their enslavement being compared to persons imprisoned from a court trial, jury of peers, and sentencing, but you do you. I'd have to ask Rozz if she views the institution of slavery in the late 18th century as being similar to some portion of felons in the 21st. Frankly, if her views agree with your conception of modern slavery ("literal slaves") as just more "bullshit" like the old, maybe I needed to understand that her conception of chattel slavery involved less unspeakable vast misery as I perceived.

We're not a monolith and it's a common comparison to make contextually across several different issues in this country. Tbh trying to act offended on behalf of minorities for diminishing 'slavery' in this way makes me feel like you don't talk to enough of us or selectively listen to what you see to weaponize our own words against us when you don't like what we have to say.

You brought up the concept of an inbalance in voting power based on which group you're in. Then claimed that it would be the Urban groups trying to overtake and overrule all Rural demographics unfairly if they had their way.

The point of the original post that you didn't seem to understand is:
1) Several states already function this way but in the reverse because of gerrymandering.
2) This is intentionally done because of party lines that also follow a very close pattern directly related to racial allegiances and Jim Crow/ the failed Reconstruction era. For instance, Missouri would've been a blue state for several years straight already if they didn't. It's in the Republican's best interest to keep up their tactics and maintain the current voting system.
3) To maintain the current system mimics a lot of similar sentiments to the 3/5ths Compromise in such states because of their historical context and racial composition of both demographics. A slave group was argued to only be worth 3/5ths of a vote to benefit slave owners. Those slaves were freed and now their not too distant descendants live in a society in which they still feel like their vote is diminished regardless because of gerrymandering to the benefit of the same ideological group. Despite voting with the majority of residents in the state, they aren't seen as a enough of a driving force to convince their representatives to listen to them outside the city. That's why Georgia and Miss Abrams are seen as anomalies and heroes to the Black community because they managed to break through even if just once.
4) The comment isn't actually about slavery, it's a reminder of how the Republican party functions in a way that mimics racially charged or unethical moments in history because it still benefits them to this day. You don't have to be a racist, like slavery, etc to benefit from the effects it's had on an area. The intent of our voting system on paper is a good one, because it would suck if rural people never had a voice because they tend to be different demographics from urban centers. But it's also because of that situation that leads to the conflict we see today. The comment was a cheeky way to say a lot about the results of both our history and gerrymandering with only a few words.

I didn't get into this with you, because from what I understand of your posting you don't believe in or perceive these issues--or maybe your angle is not to say it doesn't happen, but to debate when it does. If neither statement is accurate to you, then that's fine. But if that was true, I don't think you would say what you did, because if you spoke to us instead of ironically speaking over/for us and diminishing my words as somehow offensive to myself, you would've got the point enough to focus on what you actually disagree with in relevance to the conversation.

The conversation isn't about slavery, it's about how the same concept of voting tyranny(which you brought up) exists today with or without slaves. That was the point. Someone asked you-- now twice-- if you feel all votes should be equalized. You should answer them, because regardless of you saying you do/ don't, that's more in line to what we're getting at than what you chose to focus on. And it's an important conversation to the thread, because federal law may no longer be able to maintain abortion as an option.

And there are states that don't push social legislation in accordance to most of their actual population. That is the fear. States rights won't actually reflect the desired rights of most residents in the state. A social issue like this is perhaps too important and complex to make a blanket ban on without being more flexible and compromising. That isn't to say abortion is overall favorable or non-controversial (even among 'progressives' and clearly women) but the nature of the topic demands that it be looked at objectively and not used as a cudgel for culture war. A non-nuanced approuch will hurt people, risk shattering an already poorly designed foster/ childcare system, likely worsen child abuse/starvation statistics, etc. And yet here we are, about to see if the 'For the Children' crowd will actually take up the responsibility to care for the children and if the 'Her Body her Choice' crowd are able to still have their choice where it's allowed. See the recent events with a DA wanting to re-jail and re-charge two women who had stillbirths.

[uuuhname]

it's a bit silly to say that the electoral college is racist.

it's only silly if you don't understand that is exactly why the entire US government was created. to enshrine white supremacy.

[Slant]

it's only silly if you don't understand that is exactly why the entire US government was created. to enshrine white supremacy.

Yes. Of course. That's why they wrote "All men are created equal." into the Declaration of Independence. Clearly nothing screams "white supremacy" more than "equality".

You sure your time on 4chan hasn't damaged the way you think?

[gondrin]

Yes. Of course. That's why they wrote "All men are created equal." into the Declaration of Independence. Clearly nothing screams "white supremacy" more than "equality".

You sure your time on 4chan hasn't damaged the way you think?

That was then clarified in the Constitution what "All men" meant. The Constitution made it to where anyone that was a slave wasn't considered a person. It also made it where anyone that wasn't a male wasn't considered a person but property(yes, women were considered property up to the suffrage movement as they weren't allowed to vote or even work in most places in the US at the time).

[Poopymonster]

Yes. Of course. That's why they wrote "All men are created equal." into the Declaration of Independence. Clearly nothing screams "white supremacy" more than "equality".

You sure your time on 4chan hasn't damaged the way you think?

"Men". No women, Blacks weren't people, they were property. Don't see many Native American's interacting with the founding terrorists.
The default was "White male" being in charge, and they enshrined it accordingly with definitions at the time.

[uuuhname]

Yes. Of course. That's why they wrote "All men are created equal." into the Declaration of Independence. Clearly nothing screams "white supremacy" more than "equality".

You sure your time on 4chan hasn't damaged the way you think?

did they own slaves? were they genociding the native population and forcing them off of their land based on this idea that white people were destined to rule Northern America?? yes? to both?

I'm really not sure what kind of cope this is. assuming I've ever set foot in the website well known for Nazi trolling memes..

[Endus]

Yes. Of course. That's why they wrote "All men are created equal." into the Declaration of Independence. Clearly nothing screams "white supremacy" more than "equality".

Thanks for providing a concrete example of the core dishonesty integral to the American creation myth.

Yes, they absolutely said that in the Declaration. While some of the drafters (Thomas Jefferson, Robert Livingston) were, themselves, active slaveowners, at the time. And the country the Founding Fathers established inherently was built upon that institution of slavery. So clearly, they did not mean "All men". They meant "White men". Since they clearly did not consider blacks to be their equals. We can debate whether this was because they thought blacks were subhuman livestock and thus not "men" at all, or just more immediately dishonest about their position, but the end result's the same either way; they clearly did not think all "men", in our modern understanding of the term, were created "equal".

We can also point out that it refers to "men", and only "men". Now, I think it's unfair to presume this was intentionally gendered, as "man" was commonly used to represent humanity at the time. But we need to recognize that women were also by no means treated equally to men, in general, at the time the Declaration was written. So if they did mean "men" to be interpreted as "human beings", they're also not actually making that case in practice under US law. They were not entitled to vote, federally at least, until 1920, among other legal restrictions.

Actions and conduct matter a whole lot more than empty words, and that's what statements like the preamble to the Declaration amount to; words that the Founding Fathers in general did not actually believe, or did so only through such an extremely racist and misogynistic point of view that the idea that blacks and women were their "equals" would have been something they found laughably stupid.

[Rasulis]

You know what the average income is in Miami? 40k dollars. You know what the average income in SF is? 160k dollars. Four times higher.

On top of the higher income, many companies in San Francisco also subsidize their workers cost of living. My wife is retired but still freelance for a real estate company for something to do. The company pays for wifi, tablet, laptop, and two cell phones and lines. Her ergonomic home office chair and table were also provided by the company. They also reimburse her car mileage for business use at twice the IRS rate. Each month they deposited $270 into her clipper card. The cost for her monthly unlimited Muni + BART in San Francisco only is $38. The value of her card maxed out a long time ago. So now each month she receives that extra money on her checks.

Since she is a freelancer, no 401k or health insurance. However, if she is an employee (part time or full time), those are part of the package. Food is free. The company has vending machines at their HQ. All you have to do is flash your ID card, and you can get anything you want. Whenever she comes into the office for progress meetings or seminars, she would bring some back for me to try out. They are pretty good.

Company also pays for my wife's yoga classes and her indoor rock climbing gym membership.

One of my wife's client works for Instacart. When she bought her house last year, Instacart helped pay her down payment with interest free loan.

Not to mention the high cost of living in San Francisco is the results of a slow evolution over 5 decades. What's happening in Miami occurred almost overnight.

[Santti]

Yes. Of course. That's why they wrote "All men are created equal." into the Declaration of Independence. Clearly nothing screams "white supremacy" more than "equality".

You sure your time on 4chan hasn't damaged the way you think?

Right, like that has meant so much in the American history. The blacks, the American Japanese, Indians and others.

Sure seems like some were created more equal than others.

[gondrin]

Right, like that has meant so much in the American history. The blacks, the American Japanese, Indians and others.

Sure seems like some were created more equal than others.

Hell, even other white people were considered "inferior" and didn't have the same rights if they weren't the right religion. Cities and communities actively passed laws restricting various groups because of that.

[VMSmith]

The republican platform for the last two decades really hasn't been about solving problems, since solving problems means they have less of a platform to run on, so instead they just go with bullshit.

Why do people think it's only Republicans that do that? Neither party is very interested in solving problems, with a few individual exceptions in each party.

This concept that the "other side" is always evil in every particular is conducive only to allow the two parties to maintain power and wealth amongst just those two and gets precious little accomplished that might actually benefit the population of the country.

I know people on this forum don't ascribe to the "both sides" concept, but that's likely because you've all been conditioned to accept the "other side" as always acting out of malice and evil. And it doesn't even matter which party is the "other side", it's just on this forum that there happens to be a predominance of Democrat-leaning commenters so you all prop up each other's viewpoint that Republicans are all evil.

[Ivanstone]

I know people on this forum don't ascribe to the "both sides" concept, but that's likely because you've all been conditioned to accept the "other side" as always acting out of malice and evil. And it doesn't even matter which party is the "other side", it's just on this forum that there happens to be a predominance of Democrat-leaning commenters so you all prop up each other's viewpoint that Republicans are all evil.

Or maybe the other side is acting out of malice and evil?

This is a thread about a particular issue. On one side we have people who want abortion to be legal in all states. The other side does not.

This is a very, very clear example of how both sides are not the same. Furthermore, one side of the issue also supports related issues that may actually reduce abortion. The other side does not. It’s the latter group who wants make it illegal.

[Endus]

Why do people think it's only Republicans that do that? Neither party is very interested in solving problems, with a few individual exceptions in each party.

This concept that the "other side" is always evil in every particular is conducive only to allow the two parties to maintain power and wealth amongst just those two and gets precious little accomplished that might actually benefit the population of the country.

I know people on this forum don't ascribe to the "both sides" concept, but that's likely because you've all been conditioned to accept the "other side" as always acting out of malice and evil. And it doesn't even matter which party is the "other side", it's just on this forum that there happens to be a predominance of Democrat-leaning commenters so you all prop up each other's viewpoint that Republicans are all evil.

There is no legitimate "both sides" concept. It's a fallacious argument. It's a form of false equivalence, if you want the formal name.

All you're doing here is trying to deflect legitimate blame away from Republicans for views like "denying women their basic rights as a human being" or "intentionally trying to harm and terrorize children for being LGBT, for the sake of inflicting that harm and for no other identifiable reason".

[Xyonai]

Why do people think it's only Republicans that do that? Neither party is very interested in solving problems, with a few individual exceptions in each party.

This concept that the "other side" is always evil in every particular is conducive only to allow the two parties to maintain power and wealth amongst just those two and gets precious little accomplished that might actually benefit the population of the country.

I know people on this forum don't ascribe to the "both sides" concept, but that's likely because you've all been conditioned to accept the "other side" as always acting out of malice and evil. And it doesn't even matter which party is the "other side", it's just on this forum that there happens to be a predominance of Democrat-leaning commenters so you all prop up each other's viewpoint that Republicans are all evil.

I mean, yeah you can both sides this with Dems being status quo toting do-nothings who often just pay lip service to social issues until they're forced to act on something. While Republicans channel legitimate - and non legitimate - public anger into absolute nonsense culture war bullshit.

So, for me, it's much easier to be angry and snarky about Republican (lack of) policy making when everything they've done since I've been politically active has been to the detriment of almost everyone I know and care about. The worst I get at Democrats is annoyed and frustrated because they're too chickenshit to upset the people who already don't vote for them.

[tehdang]

We're not a monolith and it's a common comparison to make contextually across several different issues in this country. Tbh trying to act offended on behalf of minorities for diminishing 'slavery' in this way makes me feel like you don't talk to enough of us or selectively listen to what you see to weaponize our own words against us when you don't like what we have to say.

On the reverse, your "contextually common comparisons" look a lot like bringing slavery in to grab extra emotional weight in the debate. Like, in an abortion thread, I might think you're using techniques like abortion eugenicists like Planned Parenthood of old, like straight-up borrowing them, but I'm aware that you might take affront at being implicitly compared to eugenics supporters.

You brought up the concept of an inbalance in voting power based on which group you're in. Then claimed that it would be the Urban groups trying to overtake and overrule all Rural demographics unfairly if they had their way.

It's the happy outcome for them, and you, but I really think its the interests of urban groups wanting to win out, and being overly dismissive of other points of view. What works for the cities has to be balanced because of their financial heft and tax base, but you get too much into population=pure power, and you get colonial overseers determining how things are gonna be for the little people. The result is ruling unfairly, but the motivation is purely frustration at not having their will on gun rights, welfare, taxation, and voting made the law of the land everywhere.

The point of the original post that you didn't seem to understand is:
1) Several states already function this way but in the reverse because of gerrymandering.
2) This is intentionally done because of party lines that also follow a very close pattern directly related to racial allegiances and Jim Crow/ the failed Reconstruction era. For instance, Missouri would've been a blue state for several years straight already if they didn't. It's in the Republican's best interest to keep up their tactics and maintain the current voting system.
3) To maintain the current system mimics a lot of similar sentiments to the 3/5ths Compromise in such states because of their historical context and racial composition of both demographics. A slave group was argued to only be worth 3/5ths of a vote to benefit slave owners. Those slaves were freed and now their not too distant descendants live in a society in which they still feel like their vote is diminished regardless because of gerrymandering to the benefit of the same ideological group. Despite voting with the majority of residents in the state, they aren't seen as a enough of a driving force to convince their representatives to listen to them outside the city. That's why Georgia and Miss Abrams are seen as anomalies and heroes to the Black community because they managed to break through even if just once.
4) The comment isn't actually about slavery, it's a reminder of how the Republican party functions in a way that mimics racially charged or unethical moments in history because it still benefits them to this day. You don't have to be a racist, like slavery, etc to benefit from the effects it's had on an area. The intent of our voting system on paper is a good one, because it would suck if rural people never had a voice because they tend to be different demographics from urban centers. But it's also because of that situation that leads to the conflict we see today. The comment was a cheeky way to say a lot about the results of both our history and gerrymandering with only a few words.

I think we understand each other a little better on what you intended with the comment. I really wish there was a switch to flip where communities with diverse interests preserved their individuality and insulation from a dominating political ideology, and it be totally unrelated to systems of the past that "mimic" or draw unpleasant feelings "like their vote is diminished" in the way it was during reconstruction. History has the tendency to drag out change across many years from sheer inertia. Government demands continuity in political compromise and leadership without gaps. But it really would be better if it were possible to shut down the past history to begin again fresh.

The what-to-do-now-and-what's-feasible issue is fraught. In terms of my preference, Georgia should be a better case. They've made it easier to vote in comparison to states like Delaware and New York, and in comparison to any election year with the exception of the pandemic year. It's a success story. Now, Miss Abrams bathes in the rhetoric that it's not enough, or badly motivated, for political gain. I'd say she's focused on realpolitik and the short term. She might get more turnout ripping at the old wound instead of celebrate the huge increases in voting for all populations and African Americans in particular and calling for even more progress in these areas.

That's essentially the modern conservative argument. Intentionally scratching at a healing wound can get you pain, and pain you can use to promote political gain. But nothing really progresses in continually reopening wounds to then complain of the hurt. That's my view on the state of play. The political fight isn't precisely directed at promoting healing and a different future as compared to the past. The Republican party has done a poor job recruiting candidates and raising money to promote a message of a bright future for all voters in the state, if you just look at their outreach in blue states and major-blue-areas. I think it would be money well spent to give a real choice for voters, even if winning elections is decades in the future. The message has to include empathy on how history bled into current disparity, and minority candidates from the region.

I'm kind of all over the place, already 45 minutes into this composition, and I need to make dinner so I'll leave it there. There's a lot of avenues.

I didn't get into this with you, because from what I understand of your posting you don't believe in or perceive these issues--or maybe your angle is not to say it doesn't happen, but to debate when it does. If neither statement is accurate to you, then that's fine. But if that was true, I don't think you would say what you did, because if you spoke to us instead of ironically speaking over/for us and diminishing my words as somehow offensive to myself, you would've got the point enough to focus on what you actually disagree with in relevance to the conversation.

The conversation isn't about slavery, it's about how the same concept of voting tyranny(which you brought up) exists today with or without slaves. That was the point. Someone asked you-- now twice-- if you feel all votes should be equalized. You should answer them, because regardless of you saying you do/ don't, that's more in line to what we're getting at than what you chose to focus on. And it's an important conversation to the thread, because federal law may no longer be able to maintain abortion as an option.

And there are states that don't push social legislation in accordance to most of their actual population. That is the fear. States rights won't actually reflect the desired rights of most residents in the state. A social issue like this is perhaps too important and complex to make a blanket ban on without being more flexible and compromising. That isn't to say abortion is overall favorable or non-controversial (even among 'progressives' and clearly women) but the nature of the topic demands that it be looked at objectively and not used as a cudgel for culture war. A non-nuanced approuch will hurt people, risk shattering an already poorly designed foster/ childcare system, likely worsen child abuse/starvation statistics, etc. And yet here we are, about to see if the 'For the Children' crowd will actually take up the responsibility to care for the children and if the 'Her Body her Choice' crowd are able to still have their choice where it's allowed. See the recent events with a DA wanting to re-jail and re-charge two women who had stillbirths.

I perceive those issues, and my thinking on them evolves in terms of addressing them in these politically charged time. I think a few of them are stuck with no progress possible until there's a slow disarmament with a new generation rising. The mutual accusations of bad faith are a big problem. Like we were going at earlier, any attempt to dig into the current pain and debt from reconstruction could just be another attempt to brand X policy racist and thus not worth the debate. My earlier response to you drafted my line on what "vote worth" could mean (the real answer is "What do you believe that means?, since even that is more political bumper sticker than actual investigation. If you define every vote being worth the same in a way that means the Senate violates that rule, then I'm against it. I want majority rule being defrayed over checks and balances, and devolvement of power down as far as possible to localities, because the mob often gets it wrong. And it doesn't realize the pain and hurt until much later, if we can go back to problems that mimic the wrong and the harvest from slavery.

I'll give one more go at being explicit. I don't believe in easy solutions in balancing deep differences in interests, political ideology, and culture & society. I do wish to minimize it in the best workable solution. I don't think there's an easily prescribed system that will keep it at a minimum both now and long into the future. There will always be some form of Republicans in Blue States, and Democrats in Red States. There will always be the pro-lifer seeing legalized infanticide in her neighborhood, and the pro-choicer seeing an oppressive system trying to control her body.

The other balancing concern is to allow a majority party to be capable of actually making policy changes with a winning campaign message. Change policy to address new situations, or show that things could be different if you allow it to run for 2years or 4years. Splitting too far down to the county or neighborhood doesn't sufficiently allow good policies to show good results, together with chaos and uncertainty for citizens during physical moves and commerce. For my part, I'm committed to showing that post-birth care of children is better handled by the policies of the Right ... so much so that California had to go to lawfare against pregnancy centers in the state to hinder their success. I have a dark view of current political realities, but that doesn't change what I wish were the case and what I think would be a better direction for the country.

[Draco-Onis]

Why do people think it's only Republicans that do that? Neither party is very interested in solving problems, with a few individual exceptions in each party.

This concept that the "other side" is always evil in every particular is conducive only to allow the two parties to maintain power and wealth amongst just those two and gets precious little accomplished that might actually benefit the population of the country.

I know people on this forum don't ascribe to the "both sides" concept, but that's likely because you've all been conditioned to accept the "other side" as always acting out of malice and evil. And it doesn't even matter which party is the "other side", it's just on this forum that there happens to be a predominance of Democrat-leaning commenters so you all prop up each other's viewpoint that Republicans are all evil.

Forcing victims of rape and incest some underage to carry babies to term seems pretty darn fucking evil to me. Feel free to show me the "both sides" of this issue.

[Endus]

That's essentially the modern conservative argument. Intentionally scratching at a healing wound can get you pain, and pain you can use to promote political gain. But nothing really progresses in continually reopening wounds to then complain of the hurt. That's my view on the state of play. The political fight isn't precisely directed at promoting healing and a different future as compared to the past. The Republican party has done a poor job recruiting candidates and raising money to promote a message of a bright future for all voters in the state, if you just look at their outreach in blue states and major-blue-areas. I think it would be money well spent to give a real choice for voters, even if winning elections is decades in the future. The message has to include empathy on how history bled into current disparity, and minority candidates from the region.

It's hard to take this argument seriously when Republican rhetoric and policy is so firmly devoted to creating new wounds and finding new ways by which to attack and harm innocent people. See all the anti-trans laws being put in place, like the one in Georgia that will require invasive pelvic exams for girls who want to play sports. Literally any; challenges can be filed by anyone against anyone, requiring the target to either quit or submit. Girls as young as 10 or so.

See the voter suppression laws which were clearly identified as being racist in their design and intent, and overruled by the courts.

See the naked attacks on women's basic rights and freedoms that constitute the entire abortion "debate".

That "bright future" you talk about is a "white, cishet, misogynist future". That's the message being pushed by Republicans, that's the message being communicated.

I perceive those issues, and my thinking on them evolves in terms of addressing them in these politically charged time. I think a few of them are stuck with no progress possible until there's a slow disarmament with a new generation rising. The mutual accusations of bad faith are a big problem.

See, but on the one hand, those attacking Republicans can make clear and specific accusations, as I just did above.

Meanwhile, Republicans can't get specific about supposed "bad faith" across the aisle. It's just empty character attacks, projecting their own malice.

I want majority rule being defrayed over checks and balances, and devolvement of power down as far as possible to localities, because the mob often gets it wrong.

That isn't an argument against the mob, it's an argument for the mob. The premise of democracy is that the wide diversity of views will tend to ameliorate the worst impulses, water them down across the wide diversity of the nation. Reducing that down allows for local extremisms to run rampant.

Your position argues that there should not be hate crime laws, and places like Sundown Towns should be allowed to lynch blacks within their borders because that's, apparently, not "the mob", whereas prosecuting hate crimes like that apparently is. I'm so baffled that you can't see this that it's really hard to take it as a seriously-meant argument, rather than just deflective nonsense used to confuse and distract.

I'll give one more go at being explicit. I don't believe in easy solutions in balancing deep differences in interests, political ideology, and culture & society. I do wish to minimize it in the best workable solution. I don't think there's an easily prescribed system that will keep it at a minimum both now and long into the future. There will always be some form of Republicans in Blue States, and Democrats in Red States. There will always be the pro-lifer seeing legalized infanticide in her neighborhood, and the pro-choicer seeing an oppressive system trying to control her body.

You realize in that choice there's a very easy way to distinguish the two, right?

The pro-lifer is pushing a religious agenda, and religion cannot ever form a basis for forcing what someone else should or should not do; that is religious zealotry/extremism/fascism. Freedom of religion means the religious pro-lifer gets to choose not to get an abortion themselves, and not have any expressed opinion about the procedure for anyone but themselves.

This isn't a balanced issue where both sides have equal merit to their positions.

See also Jehovah's Witnesses who won't allow blood transfusions, or Muslims who won't eat pork, or Mormons who won't drink alcohol or caffeine. They can make those choices for themselves, not others.

And there isn't a single pro-life argument that doesn't boil down to religion at some point, both in the personhood of the fetus and the dehumanization of women.

- - - Updated - - -

Forcing victims of rape and incest some underage to carry babies to term seems pretty darn fucking evil to me. Feel free to show me the "both sides" of this issue.

Hell, the basic idea of telling women they don't own and control their own bodies and must serve as brood mares for society is, itself, pretty goddamned dystopian and evil. Not just for cases of rape or incest.

[Glorious Leader]

Thanks for providing a concrete example of the core dishonesty integral to the American creation myth.

Yes, they absolutely said that in the Declaration. While some of the drafters (Thomas Jefferson, Robert Livingston) were, themselves, active slaveowners, at the time. And the country the Founding Fathers established inherently was built upon that institution of slavery. So clearly, they did not mean "All men". They meant "White men". Since they clearly did not consider blacks to be their equals. We can debate whether this was because they thought blacks were subhuman livestock and thus not "men" at all, or just more immediately dishonest about their position, but the end result's the same either way; they clearly did not think all "men", in our modern understanding of the term, were created "equal".

We can also point out that it refers to "men", and only "men". Now, I think it's unfair to presume this was intentionally gendered, as "man" was commonly used to represent humanity at the time. But we need to recognize that women were also by no means treated equally to men, in general, at the time the Declaration was written. So if they did mean "men" to be interpreted as "human beings", they're also not actually making that case in practice under US law. They were not entitled to vote, federally at least, until 1920, among other legal restrictions.

Actions and conduct matter a whole lot more than empty words, and that's what statements like the preamble to the Declaration amount to; words that the Founding Fathers in general did not actually believe, or did so only through such an extremely racist and misogynistic point of view that the idea that blacks and women were their "equals" would have been something they found laughably stupid.

The veneration of the founding fathers is particularly bad and I suspect that even they would hate it had they known they would be.

[VMSmith]

Or maybe the other side is acting out of malice and evil?

Why do you believe this? Have you ever examined the actual reasons conservative voters say are behind their desire to outlaw abortion? Have you ever considered that they might consider you to be the evil one, allowing and propagating what they see as murder?

This is a thread about a particular issue. On one side we have people who want abortion to be legal in all states. The other side does not.

This is a very, very clear example of how both sides are not the same. Furthermore, one side of the issue also supports related issues that may actually reduce abortion. The other side does not. It’s the latter group who wants make it illegal.

And, again, do you really think that conservative voters are this big bloc of evil people twirling their mustaches at all the harm they are causing? Because every response to my statement seems to be implying that. Your opening statement in this quote is exactly that.

Sorry, but I know my mother and many other people and I know, categorically, that they are not evil. They just see things from a different perspective than me. They have very valid reasons for believing what they do and none of it comes down to "we want to punish women". And every time someone says that that's what their goal is, you drive them further away from any reasonable compromise and convince them that you are just "baby killers", which in turn pushes you further away from them.

Yes, there are both sides and both sides are fucking awful. Because they've convinced the lot of you to hate each other because you don't agree on something and push that to the point where "both sides" reflexively work against each and every thing the other party proposes simply because you've all convinced yourselves that everybody else is intentionally evil, and so they must be opposed.

I don't agree with tehdang, at all, but I don't think he's evil. He has reasons why he believes what he does and none of you have even guessed at those reasons because you won't listen when he tells you and you've already decided in your minds what his reasons are. You constantly tell him, and others like him, why they believe what they believe. And, in fairness, he does the exact same thing to the rest of you. Is it any wonder that nothing improves in this country when all the most invested people, like those found in this thread, are all committed to the demonization of anyone that isn't in lockstep with their thinking? I've voted Democrat for twenty years now and every time I mention that I disagree with even the smallest portion of the orthodoxy people on this forum have accused me of worshipping Trump or providing cover for "evil". ffs, Endus does exactly that in the post right after yours.

[Muzjhath]

For my part, I'm committed to showing that post-birth care of children is better handled by the policies of the Right ... so much so that California had to go to lawfare against pregnancy centers in the state to hinder their success. I have a dark view of current political realities, but that doesn't change what I wish were the case and what I think would be a better direction for the country.

I'll only adress this bit. As the rest is things that I don't have time to really dive deeply into.
But post-birth care of children, better handled by the extreme Right? (I say extreme Right, because 90-98% of the Democratic party is rightwing in my view).
How? What is it that you think they are better with?
As they are generally against paid parental leave, universal healthcare systems, good and free public pre-school and schools for all, etc.
While republicans ... aren't.